Discussion:
Computers can never learn maths. "At school I done subjects like..."
(too old to reply)
Harrison Hill
2018-07-10 15:10:06 UTC
Permalink
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Around the turn of the century, a wealthy American took to the English
lanes in his stage coach; but nothing was ever going to stop the path of
progress. Can I propose an axiom/obviousism?

"However good we are at doing something, if we had better tools we could
do it better".

Alfred Vanderbilt has a reputation for sinking with The Titanic, and I think
appears in the film. He cancelled at the last minute - due to a premonition -
and survived to go down instead with The Lusitania. According to wiki:

"On May 1, 1915, Alfred Vanderbilt boarded the RMS Lusitania bound for
Liverpool as a first class passenger. It was a business trip, and he traveled
with only his valet, Ronald Denyer, leaving his family at home in New York.
On May 7, off the coast of County Cork, Ireland, German U-boat, U-20
torpedoed the ship, triggering a secondary explosion that sank the giant
ocean liner within 18 minutes. Vanderbilt and Denyer helped others into
lifeboats, and then Vanderbilt gave his lifejacket to save a female passenger.
Vanderbilt had promised the young mother of a small baby that he would locate
an extra lifevest for her. Failing to do so, he offered her his own life vest,
which he proceeded to even tie on to her himself, since she was holding her
infant child in her arms at the time. Many consider his actions especially
brave and gallant since he could not swim and he knew there were no other
lifevests or lifeboats available. Because of his fame, several people on the
Lusitania who survived the tragedy were observing him while events unfolded
at the time, and so they took note of his actions. He and Denyer were among
the 1198 passengers who did not survive the incident."

Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.



Vanderbilt (look out for the "wide-awake hat") at Handcross in Sussex in 1908.

<http://www.slaughamarchives.org/picture/number513.asp>
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-10 15:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Around the turn of the century, a wealthy American took to the English
lanes in his stage coach; but nothing was ever going to stop the path of
progress. Can I propose an axiom/obviousism?
"However good we are at doing something, if we had better tools we could
do it better".
Alfred Vanderbilt has a reputation for sinking with The Titanic, and I think
appears in the film. He cancelled at the last minute - due to a premonition -
"On May 1, 1915, Alfred Vanderbilt boarded the RMS Lusitania bound for
Liverpool as a first class passenger. It was a business trip, and he traveled
with only his valet, Ronald Denyer, leaving his family at home in New York.
On May 7, off the coast of County Cork, Ireland, German U-boat, U-20
torpedoed the ship, triggering a secondary explosion that sank the giant
ocean liner within 18 minutes. Vanderbilt and Denyer helped others into
lifeboats, and then Vanderbilt gave his lifejacket to save a female passenger.
Vanderbilt had promised the young mother of a small baby that he would locate
an extra lifevest for her. Failing to do so, he offered her his own life vest,
which he proceeded to even tie on to her himself, since she was holding her
infant child in her arms at the time. Many consider his actions especially
brave and gallant since he could not swim and he knew there were no other
lifevests or lifeboats available. Because of his fame, several people on the
Lusitania who survived the tragedy were observing him while events unfolded
at the time, and so they took note of his actions. He and Denyer were among
the 1198 passengers who did not survive the incident."
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
Vanderbilt (look out for the "wide-awake hat") at Handcross in Sussex in 1908.
<http://www.slaughamarchives.org/picture/number513.asp>
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
Lanarcam
2018-07-10 16:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Around the turn of the century, a wealthy American took to the English
lanes in his stage coach; but nothing was ever going to stop the path of
progress. Can I propose an axiom/obviousism?
"However good we are at doing something, if we had better tools we could
do it better".
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
You will have to revise all your judgements about that now
that neural networks are everywhere.

"Self-training is one of the semi-supervised learning methods
that alternatively repeat training a base classifier and
labeling unlabeled data in training set. Most self-training
methods have adopted confidence measures to select confidently
labeled examples because high-confidence usually implies
low error."

<http://www.ijfis.org/journal/view.html?doi=10.5391/IJFIS.2017.17.1.1>
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-10 17:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lanarcam
Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Around the turn of the century, a wealthy American took to the English
lanes in his stage coach; but nothing was ever going to stop the path of
progress. Can I propose an axiom/obviousism?
"However good we are at doing something, if we had better tools we could
do it better".
Computers cannot learn anything! Computers are merely very
complex abacuses!
You will have to revise all your judgements about that now
that neural networks are everywhere.
No, I won't.
Peter Moylan
2018-07-10 16:12:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Apparently a computer programmed to search for elementary proofs in
geometry came up with the following:

To prove: that the two base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal;

Proof: triangle ABC is congruent to triangle ACB. QED.

Apparently no human had not thitherto published this proof.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Tobin
2018-07-10 17:49:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Apparently a computer programmed to search for elementary proofs in
To prove: that the two base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal;
Proof: triangle ABC is congruent to triangle ACB. QED.
The computer proof story seems to be traceable to Minsky who said he
had come up with the proof while simulating a computer proof algorithm
by hand:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1981/12/14/a-i

Minsky is wrong that Euclid used the method of dropping a
perpendicular (the usual method taught at school). He used a more
complicated method whose diagram resembles a bridge, possibly
explaining the name "pons asinorum" for the theorem.
Post by Peter Moylan
Apparently no human had not thitherto published this proof.
Unfortunately for the story, Pappus had proved it about 1700
years earlier. And Lewis Carroll had Euclid reject it in
Euclid and his Modern Rivals; see pages 46-7 of this scan:

https://archive.org/stream/euclidandhismode000469mbp

-- Richard
Peter Moylan
2018-07-11 07:38:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Tobin
Post by Peter Moylan
Apparently a computer programmed to search for elementary proofs
To prove: that the two base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal;
Proof: triangle ABC is congruent to triangle ACB. QED.
The computer proof story seems to be traceable to Minsky who said he
had come up with the proof while simulating a computer proof
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1981/12/14/a-i
Minsky is wrong that Euclid used the method of dropping a
perpendicular (the usual method taught at school). He used a more
complicated method whose diagram resembles a bridge, possibly
explaining the name "pons asinorum" for the theorem.
Post by Peter Moylan
Apparently no human had not thitherto published this proof.
Sorry about the double negative. Editing error.
Post by Richard Tobin
Unfortunately for the story, Pappus had proved it about 1700 years
earlier. And Lewis Carroll had Euclid reject it in Euclid and his
https://archive.org/stream/euclidandhismode000469mbp
Oh, well. It remains an interesting proof, even it wasn't as original as
I'd been led to believe.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-10 16:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Gosh. He really doesn't know the First Law of Holes: when you're in a
hole, stop digging.
--
athel
Harrison Hill
2018-07-10 17:03:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Gosh. He really doesn't know the First Law of Holes: when you're in a
hole, stop digging.
In accountancy (which was my profession) they would say "If
they are digging themselves into a hole, the first thing to do
is to take away the spade".

It is surely obvious to everybody who is not completely geriatric
(and I am hot on your heels), that computers can outsmart us.

"Computers can never learn maths".

Rather than insulting me, come up with a kind of maths that
computers can never learn. Good luck for France tonight.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2018-07-10 20:27:35 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
@gmail.com> wrote:
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Quinn C
2018-07-10 22:28:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
--
Manche Dinge sind vorgeschrieben, weil man sie braucht, andere
braucht man nur, weil sie vorgeschrieben sind.
-- Helmut Richter in de.etc.sprache.deutsch
David Kleinecke
2018-07-10 22:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
What do you have against Croatia?
Quinn C
2018-07-10 22:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
One francophone colleague of mine said something surprising under the
circumstances: I wish all the best to England, because they need some
good news in these times.
What do you have against Croatia?
Why do you think I suppressed what the colleague actually said, after
leading with a tease?

Your question should have been: What do they have against Croatia?
--
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to use
the 'Net and he won't bother you for weeks.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-07-10 23:08:24 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:27:35 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-10 23:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:27:35 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
As do 4 of the French (with possibly more by the time the new
season starts). Croatia field a team that consists largely of players
that do or have in the past too. Not sure what you're trying to suggest!
Bob Martin
2018-07-11 05:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:27:35 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
Will that still be true after Brexit?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-07-11 09:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Martin
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:27:35 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
Will that still be true after Brexit?
Brexit is unlikely to change that.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-11 10:25:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Martin
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:27:35 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 17:03:07 GMT, Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345
[]
[...] Good luck for France tonight.
Seems they got it.
It might be totally irrelevant, but 9 of the 11 Belgium players who
started the match tonight play for English clubs.
Will that still be true after Brexit?
Yes, probably. The rules for non-EU players will simply take over. As
all the players in question are proven internationals by the very dint
of having been selected for the World Cup their ability to play for
English clubs won't be affected at all.

David Kleinecke
2018-07-10 17:06:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Around the turn of the century, a wealthy American took to the English
lanes in his stage coach; but nothing was ever going to stop the path of
progress. Can I propose an axiom/obviousism?
"However good we are at doing something, if we had better tools we could
do it better".
Alfred Vanderbilt has a reputation for sinking with The Titanic, and I think
appears in the film. He cancelled at the last minute - due to a premonition -
"On May 1, 1915, Alfred Vanderbilt boarded the RMS Lusitania bound for
Liverpool as a first class passenger. It was a business trip, and he traveled
with only his valet, Ronald Denyer, leaving his family at home in New York.
On May 7, off the coast of County Cork, Ireland, German U-boat, U-20
torpedoed the ship, triggering a secondary explosion that sank the giant
ocean liner within 18 minutes. Vanderbilt and Denyer helped others into
lifeboats, and then Vanderbilt gave his lifejacket to save a female passenger.
Vanderbilt had promised the young mother of a small baby that he would locate
an extra lifevest for her. Failing to do so, he offered her his own life vest,
which he proceeded to even tie on to her himself, since she was holding her
infant child in her arms at the time. Many consider his actions especially
brave and gallant since he could not swim and he knew there were no other
lifevests or lifeboats available. Because of his fame, several people on the
Lusitania who survived the tragedy were observing him while events unfolded
at the time, and so they took note of his actions. He and Denyer were among
the 1198 passengers who did not survive the incident."
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
CAD is not what is usually called Applied Math. Just because
mathematics is applied does not make it Applied Math.

CAD is a perfectly respectable branch of Engineering.
Harrison Hill
2018-07-10 17:10:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Harrison Hill
I am interested in this notion that computers can never learn maths.
Around the turn of the century, a wealthy American took to the English
lanes in his stage coach; but nothing was ever going to stop the path of
progress. Can I propose an axiom/obviousism?
"However good we are at doing something, if we had better tools we could
do it better".
Alfred Vanderbilt has a reputation for sinking with The Titanic, and I think
appears in the film. He cancelled at the last minute - due to a premonition -
"On May 1, 1915, Alfred Vanderbilt boarded the RMS Lusitania bound for
Liverpool as a first class passenger. It was a business trip, and he traveled
with only his valet, Ronald Denyer, leaving his family at home in New York.
On May 7, off the coast of County Cork, Ireland, German U-boat, U-20
torpedoed the ship, triggering a secondary explosion that sank the giant
ocean liner within 18 minutes. Vanderbilt and Denyer helped others into
lifeboats, and then Vanderbilt gave his lifejacket to save a female passenger.
Vanderbilt had promised the young mother of a small baby that he would locate
an extra lifevest for her. Failing to do so, he offered her his own life vest,
which he proceeded to even tie on to her himself, since she was holding her
infant child in her arms at the time. Many consider his actions especially
brave and gallant since he could not swim and he knew there were no other
lifevests or lifeboats available. Because of his fame, several people on the
Lusitania who survived the tragedy were observing him while events unfolded
at the time, and so they took note of his actions. He and Denyer were among
the 1198 passengers who did not survive the incident."
Here is modern maths in action. This young, educated Scot ("at school I done
subjects like graphic communication, technological science") is doing Applied
Maths, pure and simple.
http://youtu.be/yVkwHLMXx48
CAD is not what is usually called Applied Math. Just because
mathematics is applied does not make it Applied Math.
CAD is a perfectly respectable branch of Engineering.
"Just because mathematics is applied does not make it Applied Math".

Really and truly?
Loading...